On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:55 PM, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
I'd prefer not to get too fine grained about this if possible, but are these the only additions to those headers? If so how about BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_MEMORY and BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL which would mirror the existing macros fairly closely?
No, these are not the only additions; <memory> has at least shared_ptr and weak_ptr in C++11, and <functional> has function, bind, mem_fn, hash. But it looks workable enough. I agree that adding a macro for each and every addition would get unwieldy.
OK, here's what I propose to add unless there are objections about the names:
BOOST_NO_0X_HDR_FUNCTIONAL - std lib doesn't have a complete implementation of <functional>, MSVC and gcc/libstdc++ seem to have added all the new features here on mass, so this seems reasonable. BOOST_NO_0X_SMART_PTR - no shared_ptr and unique_ptr. BOOST_NO_0X_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR - no atomic operations on smart pointers. BOOST_NO_0X_ALLOCATOR - no C++0x allocator support (allocator_traits etc).
0x? Shouldn't it be 11 by now? -- Olaf